This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a senior researcher in molecular bioscience, proposed to continue research on novel genome-editing techniques (including CRISPR) aimed at curing genetic disease and improving crop production efficiency.
Field: molecular bioscience / genome editing (CRISPR) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — addressed
Acting Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional based on her equivalent U.S. doctoral degree; not disputed on appeal.
Prong 2 — well positionedestablished
“The Acting Director does not provide a discussion of any of the evidence in the record to explain how the record is deficient in demonstrating that the Petitioner is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor.”
AAO decision text
Prong 3 — balance of factorsestablished
“The Acting Director's decision lists the potential factors to be considered but does not apply any factors to the Petitioner's evidence or explain why the evidence did not demonstrate the benefits of a waiver of the job offer.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- recommendation letter · ignored
- citations publications · ignored
- funding · ignored
- degree · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
Unusual outcome: the AAO did not find the Petitioner failed any Dhanasar prong. Instead it withdrew the Director's denial and remanded because the Acting Director's decision on prongs 2 and 3 failed to explain the reasoning or engage with record evidence (including a $1.8M NIH grant and four independent advisory opinions), violating 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(i)'s requirement for a written explanation of denial reasons.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Poursina v. USCIS
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The Acting Director failed to explain, with reference to record evidence, why the Petitioner did not satisfy prongs 2 and 3, warranting remand for a properly reasoned decision.
Even strong evidence (grants, expert letters) can be lost if adjudicator fails to analyze it; appeal can win on procedural/explanatory deficiency alone.
moderate
critical_emerging_tech · public_health · field_advancement
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
- The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
- The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
- The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
- The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl